After figuring out just who she's seeking, Webb rejoins JDate, the Jewish dating site, as a man — creating 10 profiles for men she would want to date, with stock images and character sketches so elaborate you'd think she were outlining a novel. For example, we learn from the spreadsheet she makes for LawMan2346 that he and his younger brother, Mark, "didn't get along great as kids, but they're best friends now. Mark is the total opposite of him — plays sports, drinks beer. Typical man's man kind of guy."

But she's not Catfishing, she's doing opposition research. For a month, she corresponds with 96 female JDaters through these fake profiles, never meeting these women but interacting just enough to collect data (more spreadsheets!) on how they present themselves. Then, she can mimic her competitors and hopefully snag a better catch.

Interesting approach, I guess. Having met my wife through more traditional means at a time when online dating was in its infancy, I can only imagine the difficulty in successfully using those tools today. So, the appeal of "opposition research" and fake accounts for testing certainly must seem appealing. At the very least, it probably makes good fodder for a book... as it obviously did in this case.

But here's the problem. As we've been discussing, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), it's possible that she committed multiple felonies, and could face jail time. Now, let's be clear: no one has charged her with this and it's doubtful that anyone will. But in an age where we're finally starting to realize that perhaps we need to change and fix the CFAA, it's helpful to point out examples of how the law could easily be twisted.

You agree to provide accurate, current and complete information about Yourself as prompted by Our registration form ("Registration Data"), and to maintain and update Your information to keep it accurate, current and complete."

In the "Proprietary Rights" section, it notes:

You represent and warrant to Us that the information posted in Your profile, including Your photograph, is posted by You and that You are the exclusive author of Your profile and the exclusive owner of Your photographs. You assign to Us, with full title guarantee, all copyright in Your profile, Your photographs posted, and any additional information sent to Us at any time in connection with Your use of the Service.

In the section "Your use of the service" it notes:

You will not post on the Service, or transmit to other members or to Us or Our employees, any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, offensive, sexually oriented, threatening, harassing, racially offensive, or illegal material, or any material that infringes or violates another party's rights

And also the following:

You will not harass or impersonate any person or entity. You will not use any manual or automatic device or process to retrieve, index, data mine, or, in any way reproduce or circumvent the navigational structure or presentation of the Service or its contents.

Now, you could make a case that in setting up ten completely fake profiles, including stock images, and then data mining the results of the women who communicated with those profiles, that she violated at least some, and possibly all of the clauses called out above.

Courts are not entirely in agreement on this, but certainly some courts have said that violating the terms of service of a website can potentially violate the CFAA (there are other factors that matter too). Even if we just look at the clauses of the CFAA that were used against Aaron Swartz, you could see how some (though not all) might apply to Webb as well. There's (a)(2)(c): intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access and thereby obtains information from any protected computer. There's (a)(4): knowingly and with intent to defraud, accessed a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value (as long as the thing of value is more than $5,000). Obviously, much of this is open to interpretation, but would you put it past a federal prosecutor arguing that Webb "knowingly and with intent to defraud" by "exceeding authorized access" obtained information and then obtained something of value more than $5,000? As the book reveals, Webb used these methods to meet her eventual husband. Is a husband something of value worth more than $5,000? Yes, perhaps it's a stretch, but... is it so much of a stretch that you couldn't see someone making the argument?

If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.

And, again, if we can make the case that the value of the information she obtained by data mining these fake profiles exceeded $5,000 in value, then she has possibly set herself up for felony charges -- with maximum imprisonment of five years.

Would a court ever go that far? Almost certainly not. But given the lack of prosecutorial discretion we've seen in other cases, including many CFAA cases, is that something that really should be left to the prosecutors' and judges' discretion? Hopefully not.

Of course, no reasonable person thinks that Webb should be charged with anything for her activities, and it's not going to happen. But shouldn't we take a seriously look at fixing the law that makes it so that it's even possible she could have faced such charges?

Reader Comments

Well,would you believe a young man could be charged with multiple felony stances and face over 30 years in jail for downloading a lot of documents from an open university network before Aaron Swartz made it to the spotlight?

Just thought I'd mention

If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.

Mike, there is no level too ridiculous or extreme that a career prosecutor won't go to. And defending business models seems to be the new goal of many US govt agencies...

The danger if the CFAA is that it can be used against those who criticise the government. So it is probably safe to break terms of service if you do not engage in political protest, otherwise such action gives the state a means of attacking a person.

Re: Re: Re:

Well, since she has already done this, and there is no information of how many others possibly could be doing this, there are not any laws that are 'protecting' anyone from it. Protecting people at the very least would require anything she did to be undone, which short of a secret government time machine isn't reasonable.

Re:

She should just follow the example of the US attorney general Eric Holder and lie, lie, lie and then lie some more for good measure and then get caught and get a slap in the wrist by being found in contempt of congress.

Re: Amy Webb

Re: Amy Webb

The same with a heartless b*tch convicted felon named Terrah Christine Brown. She's a user (in more ways than one) and a scammer. But what else could one expect from a convicted druggie and thief like Terrah?

You assign to Us, with full title guarantee, all copyright in Your profile, Your photographs posted, and any additional information sent to Us at any time in connection with Your use of the Service.

That's not even standard boilerplate universal-non-exclusive-transferable-license language. That is straight up assignment.
Given people's tendency to ignore and dismiss TOS agreements, this seems especially dangerous.

> $5000

Hmmm... she wrote a book based on the data she acquired via this right? And she's selling the book right? Did she get a book publishing deal in excess of $5000? If not what if her revenues from the book exceed $5000? Does that count?

I think the scary part is that this is just a law that was only meant to be a catch-all. It is only applied when you are already targeted and they just want another set of felonies to throw at you for good measure, or maybe they just want to harm you for whatever justification they find including up to trivial justifications of 'I am just bored'.

Re:

The scarier part is that some doofus she met using this technique apparently not only dated her but MARRIED her eventually. How screwed up is that? He had to know how manipulative she was at that point.

The book

It's all fake. If you want love, get a cat.
If you want and believe in romance, put a tooth under your pillow and make a wish on a star before you go to bed. You'll do just as well. And if that doesn't work, write a letter to Santa Claus and maybe he'll bring you that "special someone". HA!

I stopped caring about felonies when I read the fine print on the back of a can of Lysol. Since I don't use a ruler to make sure the can is exactly 6 to 8 inches away from whatever I'm spraying, I've probably committed hundreds of felonies over the years.

Laws don't matter. The only thing that matters is how you being attacked would affect politicians. If I was sent to jail for not using a ruler while spraying Lysol, the people responsible would be a laughingstock, and they know it, so I'm not in jail. If some politico thinks imprisoning Amy Webb would be a feather in their cap, she's as good as incarcerated, laws or no laws.

Granted, that the powers that be used to at least try to look like they were upholding the law, since if they acted "above the law" they'd be giving their rivals political ammo. But it seems there's now an armistice on that front: these days if you write or enforce laws, you're above them by default.

dating

this why i dont trust online dating, theres a lot of ways to make the other person to believe who you are representing but theres only few ways to prove who they really are. meeting them in person which is very risky if the person is a psycho and making them show you their government issued id but still sometimes can be fake too lol... just try to make or find your dates in a natural, ask your friends to set you up for a date, go to the park be active hoping youll meet someone in the way